There are just a handful of pools in the historic Mapleton Hill neighborhood in Boulder, and putting in a new one requires the permission of the city's Landmarks Board.

A divided Landmarks Board voted 3-2 last month to grant a certificate of alteration to Elana Amsterdam for a 14-foot-by-24-foot pool in the backyard of her home on the 400 block of Pine Street, after turning down a request to install a larger pool last year.

Usually, that would be the end of the matter, but the City Council is taking the unusual step of "calling up" the Landmarks Board decision for further review. The council did not call up the much more controversial redevelopment proposal for the Daily Camera's former building at 1048 Pearl Street.

Landmarks Board decisions in Mapleton Hill are often contentious, with neighbors and board members disagreeing on how to balance modern amenities and new construction materials with the area's historic character.

The city's design guidelines for the historic district don't specifically address pools. Many other cities don't allow them in historic districts.

Landmarks Board Chairman Mark Gerwing declined to discuss his own reasoning for voting in favor of the alteration certificate because he might be asked to explain it at the City Council meeting.

In general, Landmarks Board members try to consider the typical characteristics of homes and properties during the "period of significance" and consider what the guidelines say about comparable structures.

The Landmarks Board doesn't have jurisdiction over landscaping, but it does have a say in "hardscaping," like patios and paved areas in the yard.

There is one historic pool in the neighborhood, which was recently replaced, and a number of newer pools installed before the historic district was created.

Gerwing rejected the idea that the decision to approve the pool on Pine Street creates a precedent.

"I would argue that there is no such thing as precedent," he said. "Every property is different."

But Landmarks Board member Elizabeth Payton, who voted against the pool, said Amsterdam cited the already existing pools as justification for her request, and future applicants will surely point to Amsterdam, if the City Council approves her request.

Like backyard decks, pools are more characteristic of post-war suburban neighborhoods than of the Mapleton Hill area, Payton said.

"We only have a couple of pools in the neighborhood out of some 500 properties, so I didn't necessarily feel that they were a traditional element," she said. "They're more of a suburban element, so I didn't think they were compatible with the historic district."

Neither Amsterdam nor the neighborhood residents who opposed the pool could be reached Friday. The call-up raises two questions, the first about the appropriateness of the pool itself, the second about the appropriateness of City Council intervening in the matter.

Councilman George Karakehian, who lives in the neighborhood, said he thinks it's "ridiculous" that the City Council will be discussing the issue.

"When people talk about government and interference, here's a situation where it went through city staff, when through Landmarks and someone calls it up."

That someone was Councilwoman Lisa Morzel, who could not be reached Friday afternoon.

Councilman Macon Cowles supported the decision to call it up because of the requirement that every pool have a 5-foot-high fence around it for safety. He said that means that pools have a higher visual impact than they otherwise would.

However, Cowles said he's had second thoughts, and he'll be listening with an open mind on Tuesday.

"Generally, I think unless there is a policy issue that needs to be resolved, we should leave such matters to the Landmarks Board," Cowles said.